Back to basics

Merry Christmas my lovely readers!

As it is the festive season, and I feel I have been bombarding you a little bit with facts and figures that perhaps are a bit heavy going reading, for this blog entry I have decided to strip everything back to basics with a simple Q and A I found about the lives and plight of indigenous tribes in the Amazon.

It covers many of the points I have covered so far, but I just thought it would be a nice read incase you haven't had a chance to fully peruse my previous blog entries.

Amazon Tribes Q + A

Ignore the fact that it may be for children - I actually quite enjoyed it!

Broken promises

Just a quick blog post today!

In an earlier post I talked about how governments were becoming more involved with indigenous tribes to create reserves and allow the tribes more freedom to govern the land in which they reside.

However, 2 articles I read this week have caught my eye. Give the 2 articles below a quick gander and you will understand what I'm talking about!

Indigenous Protests Grow as Ecuador Auctions Amazon Oil Blocks

Peru’s natural gas project sparks worry for Amazon’s isolated tribes

Apart from the obvious (destruction/degradation of land due to even more development), the main point that concerned me about these articles is that in both cases it is mentioned that the indigenous people are living on reserves, or have an agreement with the government to be consulted about future projects, but in both cases were ignored. When there was effort made (such as in Peru) the consultation process appeared to be a sham, with little to no consultation with the indigenous tribes.

One thing that does lighten my mood on the articles, however, is the fact that the tribes are clearly standing up for themselves and fighting to keep their traditions alive. Only time will tell how it all pans out.

Climate change and the Amazon rainforest

OK, so been a bit distracted with many birthday goings on and such in this crazy house, so I'm sorry for falling a wee bit behind!

Anyway, while so far I've investigated how the the on-going fight for space in the Amazon is a very real, very current threat to the indigenous tribes people of the rainforest, global warming could possibly pose an even greater, long term threat.

While general circulation models (GCMs) have shown that the most severe temperature changes due to global warming will occur in the higher latitudes,  Bush and Hooghiemstra (2005) suggest that the most alarming impacts on biodiversity will occur in the tropics due to the nature and scale of its diversity and the narrowly restricted niches these species inhabit.

This is echoed by Cox et al., who use the Hadley Centre climate-carbon cycle GCM (“HadCM3LC" - see picture below for a simplified version of the model) to investigate the possible effects of climate change on Amazonia in the 21st century in terms of temperatures, rainfall and biodiversity.

 

Simplified graphic of the HadCM3LC by Cox - taken from the University of Exeter course resources.

Cox et al., uses the HadCM3LC for a simple reason. In previous GCMs, the feedback produced by changes in carbon uptake by the biosphere have largely been ignored. In HadCM3LC this is not the case. This model includes increased carbon solubility in seawater and increased biological and terrestrial processes due to temperature increases, and increased photosynthesis and a reduction in transpiration, which are all seen as feedback loops as response to an increase in global levels of carbon dioxide. When taking these feedback loops into account, models have shown an acceleration of carbon dioxide levels - demonstrating carbon levels of 980ppmv by the year 2100 compared to around 700ppmv without.

This large increase in carbon dioxide is largely seen as a result of a decrease in terrestrial carbon stores of 713GtC, which is only ever so slightly offset by an increase in oceanic stores. Therefore, this huge decrease accounts for nearly 280ppmv extra atmospheric carbon.

Differences in regular GCMs and HadCM3LC predictions (Cox et al., 2003)

As you can see from the above graphs, by accounting for carbon feedback loops, terrestrial carbon stores actually cease to be a 'store' and are estimate to become a global land carbon source due to various mechanisms such as increased decomposition with increasing global temperatures (for more in depth reasons why, please read Cox's article as it is all explained far better than I ever could).

The results gathered from running the HadCM3LC demonstrate the potential for a devastating effect for the entire world, but in particular, Amazonia. Modelling temperature changes exhibited a large contrast between land and sea temperatures, so although there is seen to be a global warming of 5K average, there would appear to be far more significant warming over terrestrial land areas. This is demonstrated with the temperatures of Western Amazonia estimated to rise by as much as 10K by the 2100, which even goes against my earlier comment from Bush and Hooghiemstra - and this clearly shows the gulf of difference in results between normal GCMs and HadCM3LC. Even more dangerous is this coupling with a decrease in precipitation, with as much as 3mm/day reduction seen. 

This stark increase in temperature can only spell trouble for the Amazon rainforest, as temperature increases modelled are outside the optimum for photosynthesis, and this leads to a modelled biomass loss of  8kgCm^2.  Amazonia is a sensitive place due to the small niches inhabited by its vegetation, but this is warming on an unprecedented scale, and it would suffer even with out such small niches.

Cox et al., go into greater depth about the vegetation changes of Amazonia, but I think I will leave you with this figures for now, as I feel they provide the greatest impact when trying to get across the sheer scale of the effects of climate change on Amazonia. This figures clearly demonstrate the potential disaster the area is facing if carbon increases are left unchecked. However, these are just basic figures and it is impossible to say how the area will definitely respond, let alone how the people of the rainforest will (if at all) be adjust to the inevitable changes that will occur. What I also hope you will take away from this post is the massive uncertainty faced when trying to model the future of our climate, and although you may read articles that sound so sure about their results, small differences in models can produce a vast difference in predictions.

Cox, P.M., R. A. Betts, M. Collins, P. P. Harris, C. Huntingford, C. D. Jones (2003). Amazonian forest dieback under climate-carbon cycle projections for the 21st century. Theoretical and applied climatology,. 78, 137–156

Bush, M.B. & Hooghiemstra, H. (2005). Tropical biotic responses to climate change. In: Lovejoy, T.E. & Hannah, L. (eds.), Climate Change and Biodiversity. Yale University Press, New Haven & London, pp. 125-137

The Belo Monte Dam - Part 2

In my last entry I discussed the social impacts and tension the construction of the Belo Monte Dam through the Amazon Rainforest would have on the indigenous people of the Amazon Basin. This, however, is not the whole story and there are so many more matters to consider when looking at opposition to the dam.

Firstly, this is being touted as the ‘green answer’ to Brazil’s energy problems. Fearnside (1995) strongly argues against this, as if all planned reservoirs (of which there are many more needed to even make the Belo Monte Dam a feasible energy source during the dry months) then the total flooded land needed for water storage would result in an annual emission rate of nearly 5.2 million tonnes of methane (a greenhouse gas 25x more potent than CO₂), most of this coming from the open water and the underwater decay of forest biomass. On top of this, the amount of CO₂ released into the atmosphere at the time of construction ‘greatly exceed the avoided emissions from fossil-fuel combustion’.

Although Fearnside admits these figures (particularly that of methane emissions) are difficult to calculate, even with a huge margin of error the emissions are vast. This then begs the question – if this is not a green answer to Brazil’s energy problems, is it truly necessary to displace so many people and destroy so much precious land when there surely must be so many other, equally as non-green alternatives? Or maybe, as WWF Brazil estimates, 40% of Brazil’s energy usage could be reduced by introducing energy efficient measures.

What astounds me more than this is the glaring omissions left out of the Environmental Impact Assessment. Amazon Watch details the fact that information regarding water quality, socioeconomic indicators, fish populations, and the impacts on riverine families were left out of the EIA – yet the environmental approval was still granted on a ‘wait and see’ basis – allowing the dam to continue with the environmental impacts only worked out as it is allowed to be operational for 6 years.

While writing this blog thus far, I had always considered the main problems the indigenous people face were as a result of the little guys destroying their land via logging, mining and clearing space for agricultural land, with the government looking rather powerless to stop it. However, after researching this topic I have come to realise that indigenous tribes are indeed facing a much bigger battle. Amazon Watch highlights a complete lack of communication between the proposed works and the indigenous people and it would appear that they were perhaps more focussed on getting onside the mining companies and other businesses – as 30% of the power generated will be used for these projects. As a result of this the indigenous people took matters into their own hands.

For 35 days the indigenous people affected by the construction of the dam staged protests with an additional 11 days of occupation of the dam site. This is clearly a cry for them to be heard and just demonstrates the lack of a voice they have had through the years of planning of this dam. After numerous promises to listen to the concerns of the indigenous people, construction began again in early November 2012. Their concerns were not met, and to this day protests continue.

Indigenous people protest the Belo Monte Dam

I will never claim to be an expert on this subject, but on my research into this monster dam I have seen very few glimmers of hope on the matter. A lot of it has just made me angry. It may well be the only necessary way forward in a way I am just not seeing, but as the focus of the blog is the plight of the indigenous people, I find it hard to swallow hearing about how their views and concerns have been so quickly tossed aside. This does not seem like the right way to conduct such a massive, life changing project.

For more information on the Belo Monte Dam, Amazon Watch have numerous articles and causes you can get involved in. For a far more in depth study of the dam than I can provide, I suggest de Sousa Júnior and Reid (2010) – even if you only glance at the conclusion.

Philip M. Fearnside (1995). Hydroelectric Dams in the Brazilian Amazon as Sources of ‘Greenhouse’ Gases.  Environmental Conservation, 22, pp 7­19